The great families of the Middle Ages - England
Which may include Wales and Ireland.
Middle Ages, the period in European history from the collapse of Roman civilization in the 5th century CE to the period of the Renaissance (variously interpreted as beginning in the 13th, 14th, or 15th century, depending on the region of Europe and other factors).
This article was going to be about the Earls of England in the Middle Ages, also known as the Medieval period, however, on reflection, that would be too narrow a viewpoint.
Having spent some time building my Family Tree for this period, it is amazing how many of the families inter-marry, probably for wealth and power, followed by in-fighting. Cousin against cousin, but not down the pub, or as part of the wedding reception. No, throw together an army of up to 50,000 souls, and then set about killing as many people as possible, especially your cousins who are fighting for the other side. So many of my Tree are recorded as Slain at the Battle of ... . It is understandable how the period became known for its cruelty, and brutality.
Part of the objective of this article is to list those families that were significant in the period, after the Norman invasion up until the 15th Century, but also to help clarify the interrelationship between the families, together with the various ranks and positions they obtained, sometimes before losing their head. I have considered adding the royal families of Britain, France, Italy and the Holy Roman Empire but concluded that would potentially be counter productive. There were so many power alliances, joining one throne to another, that the whole matrix may become full. The exercise would become futile, other than to demonstrate that that we already suspect. All the Royal Families are connected.
Firstly, a brief introduction to the structure of the English Peerage.
The ranks of the English peerage are, in descending order, duke, marquess, earl, viscount, and baron. While most newer English peerages descend only in the male line, many of the older ones (particularly older baronies) can descend through females. Such peerages follow the old English inheritance law of moieties so all daughters (or granddaughters through the same root) stand as co-heirs, so some such titles are in such a state of abeyance between these.
Baronets, while holders of hereditary titles, as such are not peers and not entitled to stand for election in the House of Lords. Knights, dames and holders of other non-hereditary orders, decorations, and medals are also not peers.
Some people go up the ranks and then loss some or all of them, and sometimes have them restored in part or wholly, either to the same person or descendants. Hence going for families instead of rank.
Royalty
Royalty
Duke
Duke
Edward III of England created the first three dukedoms of England (Cornwall, Lancaster, and Clarence). His eldest son Edward, the Black Prince, was created Duke of Cornwall, the first English Duke, in 1337. Two weeks after the Prince's death the dukedom was recreated for his 9-year-old son Richard of Bordeaux, who would eventually succeed his grandfather as Richard II. The Dukes of Cornwall are not numbered as part of their style.
The second dukedom was originally given to Henry of Grosmont, 1st Duke of Lancaster, but upon his death was re-created for the 3rd son of Edward III, John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster. On that same day Edward III also created a dukedom for his second son, Lionel of Antwerp, 1st Duke of Clarence. When Richard II reached majority, he created dukedoms for his last two uncles on the same day: Edmund of Langley, 1st Duke of York, and Thomas of Woodstock, 1st Duke of Gloucester.
Originally, dukedoms were created for those who had royal blood, either by descent or marriage (see below, list of surnames). By the end of the Middle Ages, traditionally marked by the Battle of Bosworth Field on 22 August 1485, a total of 31 dukedoms (with 16 distinct titles) had been created; yet only those of Cornwall, Lancaster and Suffolk remained. The Duchy of Cornwall was permanently associated with the heir apparent, and the Duchy of Lancaster became Crown property.
Associated with the above Wikipedia article there is a list of Dukedoms in the Peerage of England, 1337–1707
Marquess
Marquess
Earl
Earl
Viscount
Viscount
Baron
Baron
This will be a long term ongoing project, so it is therefore 'work in progress'. The method of presentation may also develop over time. ... .... Having now spent some time on this project, allocating more time than is sustainable, and considering that I also have Taylor's Map and Ludlow Castle projects on the go at the same time. I have yet to complete one branch of one family. My current estimate for the duration of this project is five years, and that may be optimistic. However, it will remain live during that time, ever growing.
So, to begin
I will start with a list of families extracted from Wikipedia. A lot of the information will be from Wikipedia, sometimes without separate verification. References to my Family Tree are based on the tree at that time and obviously can include errors.
A List extracted from Wikipedia
Anglo-Norman families (43 C, 47 P) Burial sites of Anglo-Norman families (9 C) House of Anjou (5 C, 17 P) Beauchamp family (1 C, 33 P) Beaumont family (24 P) Bigod family (17 P) Bohun family (3 C, 26 P) Brabazon family (1 C, 22 P) Courtenay family (15 P) Curzon family (4 C, 51 P) D'Oyly family (3 P) |
De Cantilupe family (16 P) De Clare family (1 C, 23 P) De Havilland family (15 P) De Lacy family (2 C, 38 P) De Mandeville family (9 P) De Ros family (1 C, 5 P) De Valognes family (12 P) De Vaux family (17 P) De Vere family (52 P) De Vesci family (17 P) De Warenne family (1 C, 13 P) Le Despenser family (1 C, 21 P) |
Devereux family (53 P) Disney family (1 C, 11 P) Fiennes family (1 C, 51 P) FitzAlan family (2 C, 30 P) Gorges family (1 C, 8 P) Grosvenor family (3 C, 57 P) House of Harcourt (44 P) Levett family (17 P) Montagu family (7 C, 98 P) De Montagu family (18 P) Mortimer family (English nobility) (1 C, 29 P) Mowbray family (15 P) Percy family (6 C, 75 P) Port family (4 P) Redvers family (10 P) Scrope family (33 P) Spring family (1 C, 47 P) Talbot family (3 C, 92 P) Umfraville (8 P) Vavasour family (10 P) Villiers family (4 C, 8 P) |
Family Cross reference matrix, the ultimate output
There are a lot of different Fitz .. surnames in my Family Tree. However, as FitzGerald means son of Gerald, it is not indicative of a multigenerational family. Iceland, as an example of current non-surname systems. Iceland's patronymic system is quite different to our surname system. For example, when a couple has a child, the tradition is to add 'son' or 'daughter' to the end of the Father's name. Under this system, if your Icelandic Father's name is Magnus, and you are the son of Magnus, your last name would be Magnusson - this tells people that you are the son of Magnus. If you are the daughter of Magnus, your last name would be Magnussdóttir (dóttir translates to daughter).
Surnames proper did not commence until around late 1200s or early 1300s . A lot of the early names referred to the place you were from, with of or de. This was also used for titles, with the King of England, and his family, being of England. ... it took until the mid-1400s before they were widespread in the northern counties of England, and it really wasn’t until the late 1500s, when the Anglican church began requiring that baptisms be recorded in local parish record books with the baby’s “Christian name”, that fixed surnames essentially became mandatory.
Family Name | Adjustment to first list | In my Family Tree (incl De, de, of, etc variants | Related to these families | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | ||||
1 | House of Anjou | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 | Beauchamp family | Yes | 1 | x | x | x | x | 3 | x | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | Beaumont family | Yes | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | Bigod family | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5 | Bohun family | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
6 | Brabazon family | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
7 | Courtenay family | Yes | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
8 | Curzon family | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
9 | D'Oyly family | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 | De Cantilupe family | x | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
11 | De Clare family | Yes | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
12 | De Havilland family | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
13 | De Lacy family | Yes | x | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
14 | De Mandeville family | Yes | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
15 | De Ros family | Yes | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
16 | De Valognes family | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
17 | De Vaux family | Yes | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
18 | De Vere family | Yes | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
19 | De Vesci family | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
20 | De Warenne family | Yes | x | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
21 | Le Despenser family | Yes | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
22 | Devereux family | Yes | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
23 | Disney family | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
24 | Fiennes family | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
25 | FitzAlan family | Yes | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
26 | Gorges family | Yes | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
27 | Grosvenor family | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
28 | House of Harcourt | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
29 | Levett family | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
30 | Montagu, De Montagu family | Yes | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
31 | Mortimer family | Yes | x | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
32 | Mowbray family | Yes | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
33 | Percy family | Yes | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
34 | Port family | maybe | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
35 | Redvers family | Yes | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
36 | Scrope family | Yes | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
37 | Spring family | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
38 | Talbot family | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
39 | Umfraville | Yes | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
40 | Vavasour family | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
41 | Villiers family | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
42 | Neville family | Not on list | Yes | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
43 | Montfort family | Not on list | Yes | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
44 | St John | Not on list | Yes | x | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
45 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
46 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
47 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
48 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
49 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
50 |
The families on the list which are associated with my Family Tree, as at March 2024, are 22 out of 43, approximately 50%
House of Anjou
The House of Anjou
Read my article about the Angevin Empire for the introduction to the House of Anjou.
House of Plantagenet
...
House of Tudor
...
Beauchamp family
Families of the Middle Ages - Beauchamp
Beauchamp family
There are two early instances which to-day have not been linked, Beauchamp of Bedford and Beauchamp of Elmley.
First known
Earliest known Beauchamp of Bedford
Hugh de Beauchamp was recorded in the Domesday Book and died after 1101.
Hugh may have been from Beauchamps in Normandy or perhaps from Calvados. No connection has been established between Hugh and Walter de Beauchamp,
Hugh was a tenant-in-chief with lands in Bedfordshire. His landholdings in Bedfordshire have been considered to have made him the first feudal baron of Bedford. At the time of the Domesday Book he held 43 manors in Bedfordshire and additional landholdings in Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire. The core of Hugh's lands were those held before the Conquest by Eskil of Ware and men sworn to Eskil, with additional lands coming from thegns and sokemen in the county.
Hugh witnessed a charter of King William the Conqueror, which can only be dated to sometime between 1070 and 1089, where he is named as "sheriff", but it is unclear whether he was sheriff of Buckinghamshire or of Bedfordshire.
Earliest known Beauchamp of Elmley
Beauchamp is sometimes known as Walter de Beauchamp of Elmley, to distinguish him from the members of the Beauchamp family of Bedford. He married the daughter of Urse d'Abetot, who is usually named Emeline, although her name is not given in contemporary records. Urse d'Abetot was the Sheriff of Worcestershire from around 1069 to around 1108. Beauchamp may have been a tenant of his father-in-law prior to his marriage. Nothing is known for sure of Beauchamp's background before he first witnessed a royal charter sometime between 1108 and 1111
Domesday Book
There are multiple entries for the name Beauchamp in the Domesday Book, with Hugh de Beauchamp having significant land holdings, mainly in Bedfordshire, following the Conquest.
The name variation of Beaucamp does not feature in the Domesday Book.
Follow the link HUGH OF BEAUCHAMP for more details about his land holdings.
There is a place Beauchamps recorded in the Domesday Book but it does appear to link to the family.
Tenant-in-chief in 1086: Count Eustace (of Boulogne).
Lord in 1086: Rumold.
Overlord in 1066: Esger (the constable).
Lord in 1066: Godgyth <of Thorley>.
The other instance of Beauchamp we know about does not have an entry in the Domesday Book but the associated Elmley Castle does.
NAME: HUGH OF BEAUCHAMP
This landowner is associated with 0 places before the Conquest; 48 after the Conquest. (Note that the same name is not necessarily the same person.)
After the Conquest
Tenant-in-chief in 1086:
|
Lord in 1086:
|
Aspley [Guise], Manshead, Bedfordshire Astwick, Biggleswade, Bedfordshire Bengeo, Hertford, Hertfordshire Biddenham, Buckelowe, Bedfordshire Bletsoe, Buckelowe, Bedfordshire Bromham, Buckelowe, Bedfordshire Cardington, Wichestanestou, Bedfordshire Chainhalle, Buckelowe, Bedfordshire Chawston, Barford, Bedfordshire Colmworth, Barford, Bedfordshire Cople, Wichestanestou, Bedfordshire Cudessane, Clifton, Bedfordshire Easton, Leightonstone, Huntingdonshire / Bedfordshire Eversholt, Manshead, Bedfordshire Goldington, Barford, Bedfordshire Goldington [Highfields], Buckelowe, Bedfordshire [Great] Barford, Barford, Bedfordshire Haynes, Flitton, Bedfordshire Higham [Gobion], Flitton, Bedfordshire Holme, Biggleswade, Bedfordshire Houghton [Conquest], Redbornstoke, Bedfordshire Keysoe, Leightonstone, Huntingdonshire / Bedfordshire Lathbury, Bunsty, Buckinghamshire Linslade, Cottesloe, Buckinghamshire [Lower and Upper] Gravenhurst, Flitton, Bedfordshire Maulden, Redbornstoke, Bedfordshire Milton [Bryan], Manshead, Bedfordshire Milton [Ernest], Stodden, Bedfordshire Northill, Wichestanestou, Bedfordshire Putnoe, Buckelowe, Bedfordshire Riseley, Stodden, Bedfordshire Roxton, Barford, Bedfordshire Salford, Manshead, Bedfordshire Salph [End], Barford, Bedfordshire Sharnbrook, Willey, Bedfordshire Soulbury, Cottesloe, Buckinghamshire Southill, Wichestanestou, Bedfordshire Stagsden, Buckelowe, Bedfordshire Stanford, Wichestanestou, Bedfordshire Stotfold, Clifton, Bedfordshire Streatley, Flitton, Bedfordshire Thurleigh, Willey, Bedfordshire Turvey, Willey, Bedfordshire Willington, Wichestanestou, Bedfordshire Wyboston, Barford, Bedfordshire |
Bolnhurst, Stodden, Bedfordshire |
Elmley Castle was a settlement in Domesday Book, in the hundred of Oswaldslow and the county of Worcestershire.
It had a recorded population of 16 households in 1086 (NB: 16 households is an estimate, since multiple places are mentioned in the same entry).
Land of Worcester (St Mary), bishop of
Households
Households: 10 villagers. 12 smallholders. 8 slaves. 2 female slaves.
Land and resources
Ploughland: 9 lord's plough teams. 7 men's plough teams.
Valuation
Annual value to lord: 7 pounds in 1086; 6 pounds in 1066.
Owners
Tenant-in-chief in 1086: Worcester (St Mary), bishop of.
Lord in 1086: Robert the bursar.
Overlord in 1066: Worcester (St Mary), bishop of.
Lords in 1066: Godric; Kenward (the sheriff).
Other information
This entry mentions multiple places: Charlton; Elmley Castle.
Phillimore reference: Worcestershire 2,73
Main family
It is difficult at this stage to identify weather the Bedford or Emley branches were the main family. Apparently there is currently no known family link between the two branches, and they both appear in records at approximately the same dates. The Bedford branch with Hugh de Beauchamp who was recorded in the Domesday Book and died after 1101, and the Emley branch with Walter de Beauchamp appearing as a witness to royal charters between 1108 and 1111. A reasonable presumption therefore that Walter was born after Hugh, but in the same historic period.
Accordingly, the Bedford Branch is dealt with in Branch A, and Emley as Branch B.
Branch A
Beauchamp of Bedford
From 1086, the Domesday Book
Please see the excellent work of Bedfordshire Historical Record Society, 'The Beauchamps, Barons of Bedford' by C.Gore Chambers and G. Herbert Fowler, upon which the following is based.
Further interesting information comes from the article about Bedford Castle.
Of the origin of the founder of the family nothing appears to be known. His name — de Bello Campo, Belcamp, or Beau Champ — is evidently taken from one of the several places of that name, the " Fair Field," in Normandy or Picardy. Mr. Round ingeniously suggests that it is to be sought in the Calvados.
Not in question though is that Hugh de Beauchamp was recorded in the Domesday Book.
Ralf Taillebois, who there is suggested to have been Hugh's father-in-law, seems to have been succeeded by Hugh in his public capacity of Sheriff, as well as in his lands. Ralf had been Sheriff of Bedfordshire before 1086, but had died before that date ; the inference that Hugh succeeded him as Sheriff is strongly supported by two precepts of William the Conqueror.
Very soon after the latest date to which our evidence for the existence of Hugh de Beauchamp can be ascribed, we find Simon in possession of the Bedfordshire estates.
As no document as yet has been found to give the name of any holder of the Beauchamp estates between Hugh and Simon, we may suppose, till contrary evidence is produced, that Simon was the son of Hugh of Domesday Book.
Two contemporary writers have left an account of Stephen's siege of Bedford Castle at the end of 1137 and beginning of 1138. The Gesta Stephani states that at this time Miles de Beauchamp had custody and command of the castle by royal licence (Milo de Bello Campo castello Bedfordie ex regia permissione custos presidebat) ; and that he received the order to render up the castle and the duty of service which he owed to the king (ut et castellum Bedfordie et quam sibi debebat seruicii uicem . . . exhiberet) to Hugh " pauper," brother of Walerand Count of Meulan, whom Stephen seems to have created Earl of Bedford. Miles answered that he was ready to obey the King, except in so far as he should try to remove him from a possession which was due to him and his by right of his father (ni se a possessione ex paterno iure sibi et suis debita amouere temptare.
... the King had given the daughter of Simon de Beauchamp, with her father's honour [or barony] to Hugh, surnamed "pauper" (filii Roberti de Bello Campo munitionem tenuerunt .... quia Regem Hugoni cognomento pauperi filiam Simonis de Bello Campo dedisse cum patris honore audiuerunt totam hereditatem suam amittere uerentes.)
A little about Hugh pauper from Wikipedia.
Hugh de Beaumont, 1st Earl of Bedford (born 1106) was Earl of Bedford from 1137 to 1141. The grant of the earldom was by Stephen of England; this was the first of his numerous creations. Hugh was known as Hugh the Pauper or Hugh the Poor.
The existence of this title has been doubted. It is discussed by R. H. C. Davis on the basis of the chronicle evidence. However, it now appears to be accepted by historians that Hugh did receive the earldom of Bedford in 1138
In 1137 Stephen ordered Miles de Beauchamp, castellan of Bedford Castle, to give it up to Hugh. Miles resisted, and a siege followed. The castle was eventually taken, but Miles repossessed it in an attack.
He was the third son of Robert de Beaumont, 1st Earl of Leicester and Elizabeth de Vermandois.
Hugh pauper is stated as brother to Waleran
Waleran was born in 1104, the elder of twin sons of Robert de Beaumont, Count of Meulan, who was also to become Earl of Leicester in 1107. On their father's death in June 1118, the boys came into the wardship of King Henry I of England. They remained in his care till late in 1120 when they were declared adult and allowed to succeed to their father's lands by a division already arranged between the king and their father before his death.
Beaumont is another family on the matrix. (Seperation 1)
Hugh pauper, otherwise known as Hugh de Beaumont "the Pauper", 1st Earl of Bedford is, according to my Family Tree, 6th cousin 28x removed, on my maternal side
Waleran married, firstly, Matilda, daughter of King Stephen of England and Matilda of Boulogne, Countess de Boulogne, circa March 1136. King Stephen of England is, according to my Family Tree, 1st cousin 28x removed, on my maternal side. Matilda of Blois was only 3 years when she was married off. Stephen of Blois, was King of England from 22 December 1135 to his death in 1154, therefore marriage took place whilst he was King. Matilda died about a year later.
Waleran subsequently married Agnes de Montfort, daughter of Amaury III de Montfort, Count of Évreux, and Agnes de Garlande, and they had issue.
de Montfort is another family on the matrix. (Seperation 3)
.
Branch A Relationships
Name | Titles | Relative | Relationship | Added to matrix | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Hugh de Beauchamp | Ralf Taillebois | Father in Law | |||||
Matilda Taillebois | Wife | ||||||
Simon de Beauchamp | Son | ||||||
Robert de Beauchamp | Son | ||||||
Simon de Beauchamp | Unknown | Wife | |||||
Simon de Beauchamp | Hugh pauper | Husband of daughter | |||||
Hugh pauper | Walerand, Earl of Meulan (Waleran was born in 1104, the elder of twin sons of Robert de Beaumont, Count of Meulan) |
Brother, and therefore brother in law of daughter of Simon de Beauchamp | Yes | ||||
Branch B
Beauchamp of Elmley
First appearance 1108
Beauchamp of Elmley, to distinguish him from the members of the Beauchamp family of Bedford
Walter de Beauchamp (died between 1130 and 1133) was a medieval nobleman and Sheriff of Worcestershire. Married to the daughter of one of his predecessors as sheriff, nothing is known for sure of his background before he appears as a witness to royal charters between 1108 and 1111. Beauchamp also inherited offices in the royal household from his father-in-law, and also appears to have been a royal forester. He and another nobleman divided some of the lands of his father-in-law, but disagreements about the division lasted until the 12th century between the two families. He died between 1130 and 1133, and one of his descendants later became Earl of Warwick.
Beauchamp inherited most of d'Abetot's lands and the hereditary office of Sheriff of Worcestershire when Roger d'Abetot, Urse's son, forfeited his lands and offices after being exiled by Henry I for murder. King Henry I of England granted Beauchamp the right to hunt wolves and foxes in the royal forests of Worcestershire. Along with the right to hunt in the royal forests came a grant of the right to keep pheasants on his own lands, and the right to fine anyone hunting the birds without his permission. Because of the king's promotion of Beauchamp, he is considered one of Henry I's "new men".
Branch B Relationships
Name | Relative | Relationship | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Walter de Beauchamp | Urse d'Abetot was the Sheriff of Worcestershire | Father in Law | ||
Emeline, daughter of Urse d'Abetot | Wife | |||
Branch C
...
Branch C Relationships
Name | Relative | Relationship | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
End of Family or Ongoing
...
Roger Beauchamp 1st Baron Beauchamp of Bletso
–1380
BIRTH Unknown
DEATH 1380
great-grandfather of wife of 8th cousin 20x removed
..
.
2
...
3
...
4
...
5
...
6
...
7
...
8
...
9
...
10
...
2
...
3
...
4
...
5
...
6
...
7
...
8
...
9
...
10
...
2
...
3
...
4
...
5
...
6
...
7
...
8
...
9
...
10
...
2
...
3
...
4
...
5
...
6
...
7
...
8
...
9
...
10
...